If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   "Why are the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments subject to erosion in the name of homeland security, but the Second Amendment is beyond compromise in the name of saving innocent lives?"   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 355
    More: Interesting, innocent, Homeland Securities, compromises, Budget Planning  
•       •       •

8509 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Mar 2013 at 8:10 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



355 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-05 12:35:03 AM
Because well regulated militia means crazy-go-nuts untrained gun owners.

It's what the founding fathers wanted, right under the part of the constitution that says rich white Christians only.

/Answer: I have no idea, it's stupid all around.
 
2013-03-05 12:41:24 AM
You'd think the Fourth and Fifth amendments would help keep the government from coming and taking your guns.
 
2013-03-05 12:58:28 AM
$
 
2013-03-05 01:10:05 AM
The towers killed in one fell swoop while gun violence is piecemeal.
 
2013-03-05 01:10:11 AM
Because we've allowed those rights to get trampled on, what's one more?
 
2013-03-05 01:47:06 AM
Most died from wounds inflicted by military style weapons designed to kill large numbers quickly.

So his argument that a subset of people killed by guns we're killed by a certain type of gun that accounts for less than 2 percent of all gun deaths is relevant?

And use of all gun deaths in a given year is still highly disingenuous as a statistical method.
 
2013-03-05 02:25:52 AM
The fact that one must give up their rights out of compromise is unacceptable
 
2013-03-05 02:49:42 AM
One thing that pleases me is that there is no debate regarding the King quartering his troops in our homes. I'm glad we can all come together on this one.
 
2013-03-05 03:16:02 AM
There are many definitions and attributes that describe a police-state (eavesdropping, unwarranted searches, etc), but the simplest and most important one is a state where police own a complete monopoly on deadly force.
 
2013-03-05 04:33:26 AM

Triumph: There are many definitions and attributes that describe a police-state (eavesdropping, unwarranted searches, etc), but the simplest and most important one is a state where police own a complete monopoly on deadly force.


Not so much in Indiana. If a cop busts into my house (without warrant/procedure) I can legally shoot him dead. Although, I'd probably be found trying to resist or something and never make it to the jailbouse.

But yeah, we do live in a police state. More like a paramilitary state actually.
 
2013-03-05 06:37:08 AM
Not sure what subby is getting at. The second amendment has long been the most stepped on amendment. It's only now that they are moving on to the other amendments that you folk are taking notice.
 
2013-03-05 06:40:43 AM

Triumph: There are many definitions and attributes that describe a police-state (eavesdropping, unwarranted searches, etc), but the simplest and most important one is a state where police own a complete monopoly on deadly force.


So, everyone should have the opportunity to use deadly force? That sounds safe.
 
2013-03-05 07:59:39 AM

brerrabbit: Not sure what subby is getting at. The second amendment has long been the most stepped on amendment. It's only now that they are moving on to the other amendments that you folk are taking notice.


Most stepped on? Methinks one needs to research more on all the amendments than picking your most favorite one to whine about. I like the idea of well regulated militias.  I'm not keen on unregulated citizens armed with weapons the Founders didn't foresee in the future. Shall we have tactical thermonuclear devices in John Smith's closet down the street? No? OK, let's figure out how we can allow citizens to keep and bear arms without some taking out so many of our fellow Americans.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
 
2013-03-05 08:07:10 AM
Gun ownership increased the chance the gun owner will die a violent death.  So this sounds confusing.
 
2013-03-05 08:11:59 AM
We need guns in our houses to keep the King of England from getting up in our faces!
 
2013-03-05 08:12:04 AM

brainiac-dumdum: The towers killed in one fell swoop while gun violence is piecemeal.


Clearly we should ban weapons grade architecture, And stupidity.
The only thing American lost 09/11/01 was its mind.
 
2013-03-05 08:13:43 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-05 08:14:01 AM
Because only the second amendment has a well-funded lobbying group working 24/7 for it to be interpreted literally.
 
2013-03-05 08:14:55 AM

Triumph: There are many definitions and attributes that describe a police-state (eavesdropping, unwarranted searches, etc), but the simplest and most important one is a state where police own a complete monopoly on deadly force.


Good thing no one is actually proposing that.

Some limits on what guns may be sold (or magazine capacity, or ammunition sales) does not equal a complete ban on firearms.
 
2013-03-05 08:15:30 AM
Because stop using violations of rights you find appealing to justify rights you find unappealing, that's why.
 
2013-03-05 08:15:32 AM

Summoner101: You'd think the Fourth and Fifth amendments would help keep the government from coming and taking your guns.


...well, they're doing a pretty damned good job so far.  I still have my guns, I don't know about you.
 
2013-03-05 08:15:54 AM
I do wish these strong supporters of the 2nd amendment would show one-tenth the interest in the 4th. I have no idea why they don't.
 
2013-03-05 08:16:26 AM
I gotta better question.

Why are you willing to let ANY of them erode at all for ANY cause?

And the second amendment exists so that the rest of the amendments cannot erode without a fight.
 
2013-03-05 08:17:23 AM
How about we shouldnt be infringing any of them?

A nation wiling to sacrifice liberty for safety deserves neither.
 
2013-03-05 08:17:39 AM

atomicmask: And the second amendment exists so that the rest of the amendments cannot erode without a fight.


Anyone actually believe that?
 
2013-03-05 08:18:08 AM

rufus-t-firefly: Triumph: There are many definitions and attributes that describe a police-state (eavesdropping, unwarranted searches, etc), but the simplest and most important one is a state where police own a complete monopoly on deadly force.

Good thing no one is actually proposing that.

Some limits on what guns may be sold (or magazine capacity, or ammunition sales) does not equal a complete ban on firearms.


And when tragic shooting events continue to happen after a magazine ban or AWB, do you think people will just stop attacking the 2nd Amendment, shrug, and say "we'll there's nothing more we can do..."?

No. You'll be coming for other guns next.
 
2013-03-05 08:18:25 AM
You're right subby, those amendments shouldn't be surrendered either.
 
2013-03-05 08:18:57 AM
None of them should be erroded in the name of safety.


"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
 
2013-03-05 08:19:36 AM

AirForceVet: brerrabbit: Not sure what subby is getting at. The second amendment has long been the most stepped on amendment. It's only now that they are moving on to the other amendments that you folk are taking notice.

Most stepped on? Methinks one needs to research more on all the amendments than picking your most favorite one to whine about. I like the idea of well regulated militias.  I'm not keen on unregulated citizens armed with weapons the Founders didn't foresee in the future. Shall we have tactical thermonuclear devices in John Smith's closet down the street? No? OK, let's figure out how we can allow citizens to keep and bear arms without some taking out so many of our fellow Americans.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.



Two baseball teams are needed to play a game, basketball teams have less players.

Those pesky commas...... separating two related, yet separate clauses.. how dare they!

also, The Founders certainly didn't see anything past movable type printing presses and quills. This TV and internet thing has GOT. TO. STOP.

99.99% of firearms in the US weren't used in a crime yesterday. Statistically, people should be pissy about heart disease and uncovered buckets.
 
2013-03-05 08:20:01 AM
Becuase Barry didnt repeal the Patriot Act like he promised
 
2013-03-05 08:20:04 AM
So you are saying that if we are going to let the Feds erode the first, fourth, and fifth amendments, then we need to go ahead and just get rid of the second?

At that point, I think the thirteenth amendment goes right out the door.
 
2013-03-05 08:20:17 AM
Valid question.  And the answer is, let's restore the sanctity of the 1st, 4th and 5th.
 
2013-03-05 08:20:50 AM
The government should establish an amendment free zone. Just a little parcel of land where the rules don't count. Then we can all see how bad...or how good it could be. Wyoming has a lot of free space they aren't using.
 
2013-03-05 08:21:03 AM

rufus-t-firefly: Triumph: There are many definitions and attributes that describe a police-state (eavesdropping, unwarranted searches, etc), but the simplest and most important one is a state where police own a complete monopoly on deadly force.

Good thing no one is actually proposing that.

Some limits on what guns may be sold (or magazine capacity, or ammunition sales) does not equal a complete ban on firearms.


Right, its just infringement
 
2013-03-05 08:21:13 AM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Valid question.  And the answer is, let's restore the sanctity of the 1st, 4th and 5th.


Hire this man immediately!
 
2013-03-05 08:21:47 AM

ArkAngel: Most died from wounds inflicted by military style weapons designed to kill large numbers quickly.

So his argument that a subset of people killed by guns we're killed by a certain type of gun that accounts for less than 2 percent of all gun deaths is relevant?

And use of all gun deaths in a given year is still highly disingenuous as a statistical method.


woah noez assault weap0ns

the liberal derp is strong in this blog
 
2013-03-05 08:21:48 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^

What he said. Why should ANY right of the people be compromised or subject to political logrolling within an ineffectual, overweening, and increasingly autocratic government? No. No drones, no Internet censorship, no gun control, nada!

(NB: The preceding comment is not intended to be an indictment of either political party. A plague on both their houses.)
 
2013-03-05 08:21:50 AM

Alphax: atomicmask: And the second amendment exists so that the rest of the amendments cannot erode without a fight.

Anyone actually believe that?


I do, the founding fathers did, being as how fighting is exactly what created the amendments and allowed them to exist.
 
2013-03-05 08:22:23 AM
40,000+ are killed, 100,000+ more maimed or injured in car accidents every year - where is the <manufactured> OUTRAGE?

hypocrites - the whole LOT of 'em.
 
2013-03-05 08:23:25 AM
I've given up on our government making any sense.  I'm at the stage where, if the government doesn't do to me what I've seen/read/heard it is capable of, then I've had a good day.  I've given up on reforming or retooling it to be more efficient.  We're lucky that it's as good as it is and that it treats us as well as it does.  I don't have a lot of hope for the future that it will continue to do so.
 
2013-03-05 08:23:25 AM
Yes !! Rather than reclaim our lost rights, and fight for more, we should race to sacrifice the remaining few, and resign to hide inside like shivering pussies until our government assigned closing date, whence we shall walk out to a blackXe SUV and submit to a lethal injection, to be carted away.
 
2013-03-05 08:23:32 AM

BostonEMT: 40,000+ are killed, 100,000+ more maimed or injured in car accidents every year - where is the <manufactured> OUTRAGE?

hypocrites - the whole LOT of 'em.


It is easy to see why, guns are used to defend ones self against tyrants, cars are used to transport fat retards to buffets. Both political parties have a vested interest in getting rid of defense while creating more fat retards at buffets.
 
2013-03-05 08:24:00 AM
Because we took Jesus out of the Public Schools*

*this is what Republicans actually believe
 
2013-03-05 08:24:09 AM
Nice try, but the question is being asked incorrectly.

The real question is if the 2nd amendment should not be
degraded why does Homeland Security, or any government
department or even the government and many private individuals
seem to think it's okay to erode the protections of the 1st,
4th and 5th amendments, or any amendment for that matter,
without going through the approval process laid out in the
constitution.

It'd supposed to  take an amendment to amend the amendments.

That is the real question.

Fire away boys (and girls).
 
2013-03-05 08:24:15 AM
BECAUSE fark YOU, THAT'S WHY
 
2013-03-05 08:24:17 AM
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
 
2013-03-05 08:25:13 AM
We've *ALREADY* compromised a *LOT* on the Second Amendment.  We have laws regarding the sale, use, and ownership of firearms that would be completely unacceptable in pretty much any other context.

Imagine if, every time you bought a car from a dealership, you had to get the approval of the federal government.

Imagine if after a misdemeanor reckless driving conviction 30 or 40 years ago, you would never, ever be able to own a car again, even if since that time you have a spotless record.

Imagine if you go to the trouble of getting a license to drive your car, but because New York State doesn't recognize your license from Pennsylvania, Massachusetts,  or any other state, if you drive there you are committing a felony.

Imagine if you weren't allowed to purchase a car that could go faster than 65 mph, or that had a range of more than 100 miles on a single tank of gas.  After all, no one *NEEDS* to go faster, or to go farther without stopping to refuel except the government, right?

Imagine if you had to register your computer with the government.

Imagine if you wanted to exercise your right to remain silent, or to have an attorney present, or to be secure in your home from unreasonable search and seizure, you had to get a government issued permit.

We've already compromised enough.  Just staying with the number of laws we have now is a significant infringement.  Some of the current ones (like the NY SAFE Act), are gross infringements.  Limited to 7 round capacity?  Sorry, that doesn't cut it.   That is the definition of unreasonable, limiting people to fewer rounds than some Civil War revolvers held (The LeMat revolver held 10 rounds).
 
2013-03-05 08:25:14 AM
ALL THESE AMENDMENTS ARE YOURS EXCEPT THE 18TH ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE
 
2013-03-05 08:26:02 AM
www.israpundit.com
 
2013-03-05 08:26:07 AM

ultraholland: One thing that pleases me is that there is no debate regarding the King quartering his troops in our homes. I'm glad we can all come together on this one.


Actually, the third ammendment is fairly unique in that it's barely been challenged ever in the history of our country.  I think it's my favorite.
 
Displayed 50 of 355 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report